We ARE in serious trouble. In this dearth of candidates that we have, Newt is the best of a bad lot. So far. At least he knows all the issues and is clear

Message 2 of 24
, Jan 8, 2007

0 Attachment

We ARE in serious trouble.
In this dearth of candidates that we have, Newt is the best of a bad lot. So
far. At least he knows all the issues and is clear where he stands. I'm hoping
for that Knight on the white horse. Mark Sanford is a good man. Who else
is even remotely possible out there?

> If you really think this is how our elections are decided, what
> are you doing here?

I'm trying to change things for the better before we are so forgone
into authoritarianism that there is no hope in the electoral process.
Part of the needed reforms are a voter verifiable paper trail on all
voting machines.

-Chuck Moulton

Jason Burkins

... Amen to that!

Message 6 of 24
, Jan 8, 2007

0 Attachment

Part of the needed reforms are a voter verifiable paper trail on allvoting machines.

Amen to that!

DGHarrison

I m trying to change things for the better before we are so forgone into authoritarianism that there is no hope in the electoral process. Part of the needed

Message 7 of 24
, Jan 8, 2007

0 Attachment

I'm trying to change things for the better before we are
so forgone into authoritarianism that there is no hope in the electoral
process. Part of the needed reforms are a voter verifiable paper trail
on all voting machines. -- Chuck Moulton

I have long opposed voting methods that do not retain a valid paper
ballot that can be counted post election, as during recounts. Voting
machines that rely solely on ephemeral digital electronic data are a
deadly threat to the people. Digital data can be manipulated too
easily, regardless of any supposed safe-guards programmed into the
system. (I don't do electronic gambling for this very reason, not even
video slot machines pass my smell test.)

But, it just occurs to me that there is another sinister aspect to a
change from voting via paper ballots only. When we voted by writing on
paper ballots, we knew that any close election could be determined by a
physical recount of the ballots. Ideally, there should be no difference
in the final. If one candidate got 15,000 votes and the other got
14,999 votes, then there should be 15,000 paper ballots for the one and
14,999 for the other. The recount is supposed to determine whether
there were any mechanical errors caused by the counting mechanism, such
as getting two ballots stuck together and counting as one.
Unfortunately, human error is often an unintentional part of counting
as well. Humans can be fumble fingered, too.

That being said, the recount can be done over and over (according to
the dictates of the law) to ensure that the final tally can be
replicated to demonstrate that there was no fat-finger counting
involved. As a practical matter, it is likely that the final tally
could come out differently with each recount (which is why the law
usually dictates how many times the ballots can be recounted).

It has become fashionable to demand that digital voting methods be
modified to provide each voter with a receipt confirming how he voted
on his electronic ballot. This could be done just like the register
tapes you get from the grocery store. Because we don't trust that the
electronic ballot is an accurate (uncorrupted) representation of how we
voted, this demand for a receipt is becoming a strong issue. There is
still the possibility that a corrupted digital system could physically
print out exactly what you keyed into the voting machine, even while it
still electronically alters your input in favor of the opposition.
Yikes!

But, here's the part that just occurred to me. If we are all able to
walk away from the polling place with a paper receipt, I fear that the
"secret ballot" will become even more easily corrupted. The way this
would come about is that crooked politicians and/or their supporters
could more easily offer bribes for votes. We all know that bribery is
happening already. Voters are offered perks and payouts if they vote
for the right guy. Personally, if someone were to offer me money to
vote for a candidate, I'd take the money and then vote for the guy's
opponent. How would they ever know who I voted for? Unless the briber
has deep pockets, he may not want to spend that much money without a
way to verify that he is getting what he's paying for. And, even if he
thinks he bought enough votes to win the election but still loses, he'd
never know whose legs to break. Perhaps that alone keeps bribery from
being a bigger problem than it is.

The paper receipt, however, changes all that. Voters can be asked to
show their receipt in order to obtain the payoff. It would not only be
more cost effective, but it would also give bent-nosed brutalists an
opportunity to orchestrate a reign of terror. Whole towns could be
targeted with the vilest of intimidation. The thugs would know whose
legs to break. Just think about the strong-arm tactics of unions, and
understand how they would be able to manipulate elections without even
spending the pay-off cash. All they would have to do is threaten
workers with potential job losses on top of threats of physical
violence.

No, I don't think it is a good idea to give voters a paper receipt that
shows how they voted. The secret ballot would be compromised. And even
if no one ever did threaten violence to influence the outcome of an
election, what good would the paper receipt be to a recount? Not only
would it be impossible to track down all the individual voters, many
will have discarded, lost, or accidentally destroyed their receipts. On
top of that, the "chain of custody," so to speak, will have been
broken. Who could ever trust the veracity of any subsequent recount?

I find that I have come out against providing voters with a paper
receipt showing how they voted. The only solution for limiting
corruption in the voting process is to require paper ballots whose
chain of custody remains intact. Cumbersome though it may be, I'd
rather be a little inconvenienced than a lot disenfranchised.

I was a bit harsh on Hagel in previous response --his record on spending is not as bad as I thought. In checking National Taxpayers Union standings, Hagel has

Message 8 of 24
, Jan 8, 2007

0 Attachment

I was a bit harsh on Hagel in
previous response --his record on spending is not as bad as I thought. In
checking National Taxpayers Union standings, Hagel has a B+ for most of his
career. My other criticism stands -- he is not sufficiently concerned about
defense as he does not support the war on terrorism which is really a war
against an enemy dedicated to destroying or controlling us
--Islamo-fascism. -Geo.

>
If you really think this is how our elections are decided, what> are you
doing here?

I'm trying to change things for the better before we are so
forgoneinto authoritarianism that there is no hope in the electoral
process.Part of the needed reforms are a voter verifiable paper trail on
allvoting machines.

-Chuck Moulton

Robbie Honerkamp

... I don t think anyone is seriously advocating giving voters a receipt they can take with them, for the reasons you mentioned (buying votes, chain of custody

Message 9 of 24
, Jan 8, 2007

0 Attachment

DGHarrison wrote:

>
> No, I don't think it is a good idea to give voters a paper receipt that
> shows how they voted. The secret ballot would be compromised. And even
> if no one ever did threaten violence to influence the outcome of an
> election, what good would the paper receipt be to a recount? Not only
> would it be impossible to track down all the individual voters, many
> will have discarded, lost, or accidentally destroyed their receipts. On
> top of that, the "chain of custody," so to speak, will have been broken.
> Who could ever trust the veracity of any subsequent recount?

I don't think anyone is seriously advocating giving voters a receipt
they can take with them, for the reasons you mentioned (buying votes,
chain of custody issues). The push for a paper trail is all about
keeping an official paper copy of each vote. As I understand it, the way
this works on most machines that support this feature is there is a
small receipt printer that prints out the voter's ballot. The paper is
scrolled underneath a clear cover so that the voter can see their ballot
but cannot access it. If the voter agrees with what is on the printout,
they press a button on the voting machine screen, the electronic ballot
is cast, and the paper ballot is rolled up.

Paper trails are very important- so important, I would argue that it
should be illegal to implement electronic voting machines without a
paper trail that can be audited to verify the accuracy of an individual
machine.

Robbie

Adam J. Bernay

I personally have no problem compromising the secret ballot. I also have no problem with people being allowed to buy votes. because I don t think it would

Message 10 of 24
, Jan 8, 2007

0 Attachment

I personally have no problem “compromising
the secret ballot.” I also have no problem with people being allowed to
buy votes… because I don’t think it would happen. Who in their
right mind would pay that kind of money to win an election? And if they have
that kind of money, they probably know things that would be good for a
legislator or executive to know anyway.

But I just don’t see it happening.
How much would people charge? Let’s say an individual vote costs $20.
Other than small local races, you are talking HUGE SUMS! Who would do that?

I do believe in paper trails, but it
should be both one in the backup ballot box and one to the voter. If I have a
right to my medical records, surely I have a right to my ballot.

>
> No, I don't think it is a good idea to give voters a paper receipt that
> shows how they voted. The secret ballot would be compromised. And even
> if no one ever did threaten violence to influence the outcome of an
> election, what good would the paper receipt be to a recount? Not only
> would it be impossible to track down all the individual voters, many
> will have discarded, lost, or accidentally destroyed their receipts. On
> top of that, the "chain of custody," so to speak, will have been

broken.

> Who could ever trust the veracity of any subsequent recount?

I don't think anyone is seriously advocating giving voters a receipt
they can take with them, for the reasons you mentioned (buying votes,
chain of custody issues). The push for a paper trail is all about
keeping an official paper copy of each vote. As I understand it, the way
this works on most machines that support this feature is there is a
small receipt printer that prints out the voter's ballot. The paper is
scrolled underneath a clear cover so that the voter can see their ballot
but cannot access it. If the voter agrees with what is on the printout,
they press a button on the voting machine screen, the electronic ballot
is cast, and the paper ballot is rolled up.

Paper trails are very important- so important, I would argue that it
should be illegal to implement electronic voting machines without a
paper trail that can be audited to verify the accuracy of an individual
machine.

Robbie

Bob White

The goal is a secret, secure and verifiable vote. Paper may have a place in this, but let it not be so insecure that goons in, for example, Kings County

Message 11 of 24
, Jan 8, 2007

0 Attachment

The goal is a secret, secure and verifiable vote. Paper may have a place in this, but let it not be so insecure that goons in, for example, Kings County Washington can "find" a missing ballot box to win an election.

It's bad enough that some states don't require id to be presented at the polling place prior to voting (and none require purple stains on the thumb afterward).

What if the receipt merely returned an id number uniquely identifying the vote cast. The voter could then bring this receipt to a controlled place (e.g. voter reg office) after the election and re-read the choices he had made.

It's not clear to me what good this would be as it would be a bad idea to allow someone to change the recorded vote. The time to verify one's vote is before casting it -- and the touchscreen machines (at least in Fla) do that. But it would be reassuring if one's recorded vote could be verified later on, proving that one's vote was
recorded properly even though that wouldn't prove that it was added to the official tally.

Robbie Honerkamp <robbie@...> wrote:

DGHarrison wrote: > > No, I don't think it is a good idea to give voters a paper receipt that > shows how they voted. The secret ballot would be compromised. And even > if no one ever did threaten violence to influence the outcome of an > election, what good would the paper receipt be to a recount? Not only > would it be impossible to track down all the
individual voters, many > will have discarded, lost, or accidentally destroyed their receipts. On > top of that, the "chain of custody," so to speak, will have been broken. > Who could ever trust the veracity of any subsequent recount?

I don't think anyone is seriously advocating giving voters a receipt they can take with them, for the reasons you mentioned (buying votes, chain of custody issues). The push for a paper trail is all about keeping an official paper copy of each vote. As I understand it, the way this works on most machines that support this feature is there is a small receipt printer that prints out the voter's ballot. The paper is scrolled underneath a clear cover so that the voter can see their ballot but cannot access it. If the voter agrees with what is on the printout, they press a button on the voting machine screen, the electronic ballot is cast, and the paper ballot is rolled up.

Paper trails are very important- so important, I would argue that it should be illegal to implement electronic voting machines without a paper trail that can be audited to verify the accuracy of an individual machine.

The goal is a secret, secure and verifiable vote. Paper may have a
place in this, but let it not be so insecure that goons in, for example, Kings
County Washington can "find" a missing ballot box to win an
election.

It's bad enough that some states don't require id to be
presented at the polling place prior to voting (and none require purple stains
on the thumb afterward).

What if the receipt merely returned an id number
uniquely identifying the vote cast. The voter could then bring this
receipt to a controlled place (e.g. voter reg office) after the election and
re-read the choices he had made.

It's not clear to me what good this
would be as it would be a bad idea to allow someone to change the recorded
vote. The time to verify one's vote is before casting it -- and the
touchscreen machines (at least in Fla) do that. But it would be reassuring
if one's recorded vote could be verified later on, proving that one's vote was
recorded properly even though that wouldn't prove that it was added to the
official tally.

Robbie Honerkamp
<robbie@shorty. com> wrote:

DGHarrison wrote:> > No, I don't think it is a good idea to
give voters a paper receipt that> shows how they voted. The secret
ballot would be compromised. And even> if no one ever did threaten
violence to influence the outcome of an> election, what good would the
paper receipt be to a recount? Not only> would it be impossible to
track down all the individual voters, many> will have discarded, lost,
or accidentally destroyed their receipts. On> top of that, the "chain
of custody," so to speak, will have been broken.> Who could ever trust
the veracity of any subsequent recount?

I don't think anyone is
seriously advocating giving voters a receiptthey can take with them, for
the reasons you mentioned (buying votes,chain of custody issues). The push
for a paper trail is all aboutkeeping an official paper copy of each vote.
As I understand it, the waythis works on most machines that support this
feature is there is asmall receipt printer that prints out the voter's
ballot. The paper isscrolled underneath a clear cover so that the voter
can see their ballotbut cannot access it. If the voter agrees with what is
on the printout,they press a button on the voting machine screen, the
electronic ballotis cast, and the paper ballot is rolled up.

Paper
trails are very important- so important, I would argue that itshould be
illegal to implement electronic voting machines without apaper trail that
can be audited to verify the accuracy of an
individualmachine.

I personally have no problem compromising the secret ballot. I also have no problem with people being allowed to buy votes... because I don t think it would

Message 14 of 24
, Jan 8, 2007

0 Attachment

I personally
have no problem “compromising
the secret ballot.” I also have no problem with people being allowed
to
buy votes… because I don’t think it would happen. Who in their
right mind would pay that kind of money to win an election? And if
they have
that kind of money, they probably know things that would be good for a
legislator or executive to know anyway.

But I just
don’t see it happening.
How much would people charge? Let’s say an individual vote costs $20.
Other than small local races, you are talking HUGE SUMS! Who would do
that?

I do
believe in paper trails, but it
should be both one in the backup ballot box and one to the voter. If I
have a
right to my medical records, surely I have a right to my ballot. -- Adam

A
good point. The vote of the typical voter is purchased indirectly, with
political promises amounting to billions of dollars rather than with
cash, and it would cost a fortune to buy the votes of the average
American directly. But then again, we've already heard that the
Democrats have obtained the homeless and soup kitchen vote with bribes
of cigarettes. Such votes might not cost them that much after all, and
a receipt would allow them to monitor and control their vote buying
scheme. I guess I'm just a cynic.

Okay. That's my last comment on this issue. The moderator will soon
suggest that we take it to another discussion board.

I'm not persuaded that precluding the "danger" of the "selling of
votes" is worth such a highly-complicated, intensely high-tech
system. Here's a MUCH, much
simpler one:http://FreedomKeys.com/gabersystem.htm

Ray Holtorf

I seem to remember Thommy Thompson as being ideal when Bush snapped him up for HHS. Does anyone know his pre-Bush administration record? There was also Tom

Message 16 of 24
, Jan 9, 2007

0 Attachment

I seem to remember Thommy Thompson as being ideal when
Bush snapped him up
for HHS. Does anyone know his pre-Bush administration
record? There was
also Tom Ridge, and a Governor from Michigan. I recall
each had excellent
libertarian-ish qualities, and then all were snapped
up and placed in big
government departments in the Bush administration. At
first I thought it
was a sign those departments would be reigned in - now
it seems an effort
to remove them from the race.

> We ARE in serious trouble. In this dearth of
candidates that we have, Newt
> is the best of a bad lot. So far. At least he knows
all the issues and is
> clear where he stands. I'm hoping for that Knight on
the white horse.
> Mark Sanford is a good man. Who else is even
remotely possible out there?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jason Burkins
> To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
> Cc: Jason Burkins
> Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Encourage Senator Hagel to
run for President!
>
> If Newt is the best we can do, we're in serious
trouble.
>
> Time for somebody new. Gingrich is too tainted in
the public eye.
>
> Jason Burkins
> jason@burkins. net
> Libertas Consulting
>
> On Jan 7, 2007, at 10:14 PM, David Briggman wrote:
>
> I think Newt's about the best this party can hope
for.
>
> Unless Ron Paul steps up, which is doubtful, I'll
llikely work for Newt.
>
>
>
> On 1/7/07, Bob White <oxanastapol-rlc@...>
wrote:
> The best thing about Hagel running for President
would be that he would
> make the others look better by comparison.
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Adrian Augustine

Well I don t want to bash our former Governor, hes far better than our current Democratic one, but here s my analysis... a) the bad news Tommy never really was

Message 17 of 24
, Jan 9, 2007

0 Attachment

Well I don't want to bash our former Governor, hes far better than our current Democratic one, but here's my analysis...

a) the bad newsTommy never really was a fiscal conservative on spending issues. Many Republicans secretly blame him for the large deficits his GOP successor inherited when the recession hit. After heading up HHS Tommy has also displayed some nanny state tendencies that are troubling.

b) neutral to positveHe was really good on tax cuts, but then again every GOP governor in the 90s was considering the overflowing tax revenue that was streaming in from the economy.

c) the good newsHe was a pioneer when it came to reforming welfare and implementing school choice before it got traction in other states and at the federal level. Tommy never was much of a social conservative in the evangelical sense. For the lack of a better term I'll describe him as a secular traditionalist.

While Tommy may not be that impressive of a
speaker, he is a really good retail politician. I don't know how his small town Wisconsin charm(population of Elroy, WI: 1,758) will work in other states but Iowa and New Hampshire seem like pretty good testing grounds.

Anyway, I think Tommy is like most GOP candidates for the nomination, some good, some bad...nothing perfect.

Adrian AugustineWisconsin

Ray Holtorf <rayholtorf@...> wrote:

I seem to remember Thommy Thompson as being ideal when Bush snapped him up for HHS. Does anyone know his pre-Bush
administration record? There was also Tom Ridge, and a Governor from Michigan. I recall each had excellent libertarian- ish qualities, and then all were snapped up and placed in big government departments in the Bush administration. At first I thought it was a sign those departments would be reigned in - now it seems an effort to remove them from the race.

.

__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.